 |
|
|
L. Neil Smith's THE LIBERTARIAN ENTERPRISE Number 328, July 17, 2005 "Because the Government is evil and stupid..."
Send Letters to editor@ncc-1776.org
With Free Staters continuing to move to New Hampshire ahead of the 20,000-signer threshold, and with our original September 2006 goal for 20,000 signatures on the horizon, we need to consider whether to change our mission statement, Statement of Intent, or Participation Guidelines. Is there a way we can restructure the Project to increase our chances of success in creating a free state, and in achieving liberty in our lifetime? The FSP Board of Directors wants to hear what you have to say. You can post your ideas on our forum, send them to us by email at [email protected], participate in the discussion at the Porcupine Freedom Festival, or attend one of the scheduled local group meetings in August to make your views heard. We'll carefully consider all input we receive by September 1st, and we plan to make a decision on any changes by October 1st. Thanks for your help in working toward a freer society! Jason Sorens
Dear Mr. Ed/Editor/Ken, & Jim, Re.: "Closing the Door on Political Correctness", by Jim Lesczynski http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle327-20050710-05.html Jim, Well, I dunno. As Bill Shatner would say: "I can't get behind that." Allow me to take a quote from your article: "Old lady in a walker? Of course you hold the door, even if you don't know her. Young punk? Let the door slam in his face. Mother pushing a carriage? Let her in, whoever she is. Crazy homeless guy? Door slam." There's a whole world of hurt just waiting to happen with your scenario. What if the 'old lady in a walker' happens to be a front woman for a gang? Mother with a carriage? What if she's a front woman for a gang? Seems to me that you are playing the same game you want to get rid of: Political correctness. If someone has lawful access, then you must make them play the game they bought into: Use The Key. Because, otherwise? You are simply obviating the who purpose the process was developed for to begin with: Prevention of crime. You cannot read minds, and certainly you cannot determine the goodness of a soul by simple observation of the person, be it an old lady using a walker, or a woman pushing a perambulator (baby carriage), or what appears to be a 'young punk.' BTW: Just what does a 'young punk' look like, anyway?! Your idea of a 'young punk' might be my idea of a bonny lad from the Highlands of Scotland. In Liberty,
A Funny Thing Happened on the Way To Perpetual War Here's an interesting quote from Joe Sobran: "The original reason given for war with Iraq was that Saddam posed a threat to the West, even an imminent threat. Blair warned his country that Saddam might be able to deliver his fearsome weapons to England within 45 minutes. That propaganda, exposed as empty, has had to be abandoned, but the murderous policy it sold the public goes on anyway. We are still being "protected" against a threat that never was." The thing is, we're under more threat today than ever! The entire war and the apparatus of "security" that has been created is more of a threat than anything that asshole Hussein could have cooked up. Nice job, Gooferment. Poke the hornet's nest and then make US wear the Constitutional Burkas. Alan Robert Weiss
Guns for All Re: "Domestic Violence Victims Need Self-Defense", by Wendy McElroy http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2005/tle327-20050710-10.html Dear Editor, Wendy McElroy's ideas are always most welcome. In her latest piece: she points out that the absence of obligation of the police to provide actual protection to anyone against any criminals, even those against whom restraining orders have been obtained, makes it clear that individuals should have unrestricted access to the means of self-defense, especially guns. Given that the original decision South v. Maryland which established this important point of law came in 1856 when the right to keep and bear arms was much more widely regarded, I think the context for "the police aren't obligated to protect you" is exactly that: you are expected to protect yourself. The clear text of the Second Amendment is that individuals are to have uninfringed means to protect themselves. However, I would go further than Wendy. Rather than just supposing that her children would be better off, and perhaps still alive, were their mother Jessica Gonzales equipped with a gun and training on how to use it, I would say that the children would be even better off if "Leslie, 7, Katheryn, 9 and Rebecca, 10" were each similarly equipped with guns and training. Again, the obligation for self defense is personal, not familial, and not communal. Children ought to be taken seriously. Therefore, at the earliest possible age, they should be trained in the issues of gun safety and provided with the opportunity to keep and bear arms. There is nothing about gun ownership that ought to be restricted to adults. Anyone old enough to carry a pistol is old enough to use one, and anyone who thinks that children are safer if kept in ignorance of gun safety ought to think again. Regards, Jim Davidson
TLE AFFILIATE Help Support TLE by patronizing our advertisers and
affiliates.
|
|
|
|
